Liberals accuse government of backdown on aged care program

Government extends home support for older Australians amid pressure In short: The federal government has extended the Commonwealth Home Support Program for another two years. The opposition has labelled the move an "embarrassing, overdue backdown from Labor in the face of overwhelming evidence". What's next? The aged care minister said the intention was to keep the program separate from Support at Home on an ongoing basis. The Commonwealth program helping older people with shopping, transport and meals on wheels will be extended until 2029, but the government has flagged its intention to make the program permanent beyond that. The Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) assists 830,000 seniors with low-level supports to help them live at home. As part of major changes to the aged care sector, the program was going to be abolished in mid-2027 and rolled into the new Support at Home program, which is designed to provide a coordinated budget to support more complex care, but which critics said was going to make service delivery more expensive and less efficient. Providers, including local councils, had also withdrawn services because of the uncertainty around the program's future. Aged Care Minister Sam Rae said the government was now also beginning consultation with an eye to permanently keeping CHSP separate from Support at Home. "We believe the CHSP should remain a standalone program," he said. Mr Rae said it was important for the government to be looking at how it can use early intervention services like CHSP to take pressure off the rest of the ever-growing aged care system, which faces a shortage of beds and long waitlists. He hoped the operators that stopped providing services would return now they had certainty. Health Minister Mark Butler said the CHSP program would require reform, though, because there was some overlap between it and the Support at Home program. "There are differences in co-contribution arrangements that will have to be sorted," he said. Under CHSP, participants are expected to contribute varying amounts to the cost of their care, if they can afford to. "Simple services like house cleaning and meals might cost a few dollars. More complex services like some home modifications will cost much more," according to the department's website. Under Support at Home, depending on someone's pensioner status and the type of care they require, they contribute between 5 and 80 per cent of costs. 'Overwhelming' evidence for decision A Senate inquiry earlier this year recommended CHSP be kept as a separate block-funded program, and Shadow Aged Care Minister Anne Ruston said the decision was an "embarrassing" backdown given mounting evidence. "This is an embarrassing, overdue backdown from Labor in the face of overwhelming evidence that abolishing community support would have been reckless for the 835,000 older Australians who rely on this program,"she said. "Labor has left this decision until the last minute, just as they have done repeatedly throughout their chaotic aged care reforms." The announcement was welcomed by provider body Ageing Australia, which had been pushing for the program to remain separate, given Support at Home was "not yet delivering for older people". Council on the Ageing chief executive Patricia Sparrow agreed it was important the program was extended. "The task now is making sure the Commonwealth Home Support Program, Support at Home and the broader aged care system work together so older Australians don't fall through the cracks, get caught between program boundaries or face unnecessary barriers as their needs change," she said. "It's good that this gives people, including providers like local councils, certainty about the future of the program." Greens leader Larissa Waters also labelled the decision a "massive win". "It is outrageous that Labor thought that older Australians should have their lives uprooted and future thrown into uncertainty," she said. The government did not reveal the cost of extending the program but said it was not a savings measure.